Commonwealth v. Ballante

Blair County Court of Quarter Sessions

Commonwealth v. Ballante

2 Pa. D. & C. 538, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 345

CourtBlair County Court of Quarter Sessions

DecidedOctober 31, 1922

DocketNo. 22

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pa. D. & C. 538 (Commonwealth v. Ballante) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Blair County Court of Quarter Sessions primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Ballante, 2 Pa. D. & C. 538, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 345 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldrige, P. J.,

The defendant was convicted under the Act approved April 18, 1919, P. L. 70, which provides that any person who, with intent to defraud, shall make, draw or deliver any check, and has not sufficient funds in the bank upon which the check is drawn, shall be guilty of misdemeanor.

The defendant moved for a new trial and to arrest the judgment on the ground that this court had no jurisdiction because the check was drawn and placed in the mail in Huntingdon County, and that, therefore, the offence was not committed in this county.

“Deliver,” in legal phraseology, means the final, absolute transfer to the payee: Black v. Shreve, 13 N. J. Eq. 455. The delivery to the post-office is a constructive and technical delivery. It is not that complete transfer and final step which this statute contemplates. This is especially true since the regulations of the United States Post-Office have been altered so that a sender of mail may apply for it after he has deposited it in a letter-box, when he can identify it, and the postmaster must return it to him: 13 Corpus Juris, 302.

The delivery, therefore, of the check to the mail did not complete the transaction. The ultimate result was had, and the delivery completed, when the drawee in the check received possession of it. The fraud, therefore, was finished in this county, and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction.

The motion for a new trial and arrest of judgment is, therefore, overruled.

Prom Robert W. Smith, Hollldaysburg, Pa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baldrige, P. J.,

The defendant was convicted under the Act approved April 18, 1919, P. L. 70, which provides that any person who, with intent to defraud, shall make, draw or deliver any check, and has not sufficient funds in the bank upon which the check is drawn, shall be guilty of misdemeanor.

The defendant moved for a new trial and to arrest the judgment on the ground that this court had no jurisdiction because the check was drawn and placed in the mail in Huntingdon County, and that, therefore, the offence was not committed in this county.

“Deliver,” in legal phraseology, means the final, absolute transfer to the payee: Black v. Shreve, 13 N. J. Eq. 455. The delivery to the post-office is a constructive and technical delivery. It is not that complete transfer and final step which this statute contemplates. This is especially true since the regulations of the United States Post-Office have been altered so that a sender of mail may apply for it after he has deposited it in a letter-box, when he can identify it, and the postmaster must return it to him: 13 Corpus Juris, 302.

The delivery, therefore, of the check to the mail did not complete the transaction. The ultimate result was had, and the delivery completed, when the drawee in the check received possession of it. The fraud, therefore, was finished in this county, and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction.

The motion for a new trial and arrest of judgment is, therefore, overruled.

Prom Robert W. Smith, Hollldaysburg, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pa. D. & C. 538, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-ballante-paqtrsessblair-1922.